Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88312 Case Number: LCR11918 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MOTORWAY TYRES AND BATTERIES - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claims on behalf of four workers for wage increases under the 26th and 27th wage rounds and for parity of pay with workers in the Portlaoise depot.
Recommendation:
9. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Union accepts management's proposals
as set out in the letter of 12th April, 1988 - including the
proposals relating to the acceptance of on-going change - amended
to provide that the £10 addition to the weekly basic rate should
be applied as on and from 1st January, 1988, and that the terms of
the National Plan be applied to the new basic as from the same
date.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88312 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11918
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MOTORWAY TYRES AND BATTERIES
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of four workers for wage increases under the
26th and 27th wage rounds and for parity of pay with workers in
the Portlaoise depot.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of a British Company, and is
engaged in the Tyre Sales/Distribution Wholesale/Retail business.
It has depots in Dublin, Portlaoise and Limerick.
3. The 26th wage round is due from 1st January, 1987. At
Christmas 1987, the Company made a £300 nett lump sum payment to
the workers concerned following unofficial strike action in
pursuit of their 26th wage round claim. This equated to an
increase of 7% for twelve months for the 26th wage round.
4. On the 18th February, 1988, the Union submitted the following
claim -
(a) 7% for the 26th Wage Round.
(b) Terms of the Programme for National Recovery applicable
from 1st January, 1988.
(c) Parity of pay between the workers at the Dublin depot
and the Portlaoise depot (at present there is a
difference of £26 a week).
The Union claimed that the £300 paid at Christmas 1987 was on
account only and asked the Company to apply parity from November,
1987.
5. The Company in reserving its position indicated that there
could be no question of retrospective payments in respect of the
parity claim.
6. As no progress was possible the matter was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on 23rd February, 1988.
A Conciliation Conference was held on 11th April. Following the
Conference the Company put forward the following offer by letter
dated 12th April, 1988 -
(a) The payment of £300 to be considered as full and final
settlement of the 26th wage round.
(b) The terms of the National Plan for Recovery to apply
from 1st January, 1988.
(c) On the claim for parity the Company would apply £10 on
basic rate from date of acceptance, and bring the rates
into line with Portlaoise from 1st January, 1989.
Acceptance and implementation of the parity claim subject to the
following conditions -
(1) Lunch time fitting.
(2) Regrooving.
(3) Housekeeping.
(4) Adequate notice of requests for time off.
This offer was rejected by the Union. Both parties agreed to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on 26th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company's offer was rejected because the workers
concerned are not prepared to carry out the same duties and
responsibilities for a lesser rate of pay than their
colleagues in other depots.
2. It is unjust and unfair to have disparities in rates of
pay between employees doing the same job in the same Company.
3. The Company has argued that the Dublin depot is operating
at a loss while the Portlaoise depot is profitable. The lack
of profitability in the Dublin depot is not due to the rates
of pay being paid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The workers are being given all they are seeking albeit
within a different time frame.
2. The Company's offer in all of the circumstances, is
generous to say the least.
3. Over the last few years the Company has fared badly at
its Dublin depot. It has had to close down its depot in
Tallaght and carry out a major redundancy/rationalisation
programme at its Finglas depot. However the rates of pay of
the claimants have remained in line with those of drivers and
fitters in similar companies.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Union accepts management's proposals
as set out in the letter of 12th April, 1988 - including the
proposals relating to the acceptance of on-going change - amended
to provide that the £10 addition to the weekly basic rate should
be applied as on and from 1st January, 1988, and that the terms of
the National Plan be applied to the new basic as from the same
date.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th June, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman